Information on this site is for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have a legal problem, consult your institutional counsel or an attorney licensed to practice law in your state. Information and views presented in this blog are solely those of the individual contributors and not their employers.

The late legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin wrote in his book, Justice for Hedgehogs, that “[r]esponsibility is an indispensable concept across our intellectual life.” Dworkin reasoned that there are two forms of responsibility, one concerning personal virtue and the other related to liability. Though distinct, Dworkin and other leading legal philosophers have argued the need to not ignore either when applying legal and political interpretations. Dworkin, like many others, believed that morality has a place in our legal and political framework. Though people differ on many bracing issues of the day, take to heart the need to apply a moral lens. In this case, applying a moral lens to higher education in terms of that personal virtue of responsibility in a post-in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) world.

This common law practice remained until the 1960s court case, Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (5th Cir. 1961), where the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Black students who had been expelled by Alabama State College for participating in civil rights demonstrations. The 5th Circuit ruled that public university students were obligated a 14th amendment right to due process, therefore in context, a prior notice and hearing concerning expulsion. Dixon signaled the end of in loco parentis. The responsibility of moral discipline by higher education ironically became sterilized in the process of newer, nontraditional liberties recognized to adult college students. How a practice that lasted decades ended so matter of factly without consideration of making increment adjustments is worth further review. By losing the parental authority of in loco parentis, the balance and clarity of responsibility has tilted.

Since the Dixon decision, new programs like FERPA and HIPPA sought to serve and protect students and their parents in various capacities in hope of filling the hole of in loco parentis. Nevertheless, parents have felt the need to know more in situations where their children, even as young adults, are facing dangerous or problematic issues. A revised, responsible doctrine of in loco parentis could be the solution. But should colleges handover information about their students’ private lives when they harm themselves or others? What is harm? What about adulthood? What are the responsibilities and consequences concerning actions as an adult? So many questions need to be asked and reconsidered before making long-term decisions. What is certain, however, is that college students and the institutions that serve them have a responsibility of great importance.

This post was authored by Edward "Kyle" Richey, a masters student in Higher Education Administration at The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Reader Comments (4)

Handling health-related issues are very tricky. I believe there needs to be further conversations with many different stakeholders in order to find the best solutions for students. I do believe that if students could potentially harm themselves, there needs to be a point in which a family member or the student's emergency contact should be contacted and informed. However, this process will need to make sure that students' rights are not violated.

I find that the lack of parent involvement and assigning of responsibility to the students themselves is an ideal situation. If parents are wanting to be involved or need to provide assistance then they should be required to work with their student to communicate what the student needs or gain access to certain information. Since the students in college are typically at the age where they are considered legal adults it is important for universities to respect this and work with students to help them develop in to responsible adults. I do believe that their need to be some protections and safety precautions to ensure student safety though. When students are expressing harmful behavior or are not in the right mind to properly care for themselves then their needs to be some way to notify or seek assistance from family or outside resources.

Managing physical and mental health of students is a challenging issue, and the interaction between liability and morality is particularly thorny issue for administrators to navigate. I tend to agree that, for better or worse, students do need to be treated as adults and have their rights to privacy protected, but there is also room for colleges to establish robust support systems for students who are might be struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. Given that administrators may not be able to universally protect students, preventative measures (i.e. offering robust, effective mental health services) may be one of the better methods of response.

I always appreciate your entries Kyle. You are a very profound person and I can always guarantee each thing you write stimulates intellectual electricity in my brain which leads to good conversation between us. I really enjoy your blog seeing as I am a huge advocate for physical and mental health. I think we need to give our students as much freedom as possible but also make sure that they are trained in figuring out how to navigate tricky situations like how to make sure you are getting the best care from the on campus clinic and hiring staff that makes sure that they have done the absolute most for each student that crosses their doors. That is as much as I believe a university should have a say in students life. If we do not treat students like adults they will graduate with no knowledge of how to traverse clinics and insurance and other dry topics.